17085 2012-05-17 04:45:11 +0000 [Shadow]: Clarify the effect of <meta http-equiv="…"> in Shadow DOM 2012-07-20 17:52:28 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG HISTORICAL - Component Model unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 14978 1 dominicc dglazkov public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 67801 0 dominicc 2012-05-17 04:45:11 +0000 Presumably, as a <script> tag in Shadow DOM executes and has side-effects on the global state, what is the effect of things like var s = new ShadowRoot(document.head); s.innerHTML = '<meta http-equiv="set-cookie" content="foo=bar">'; on document.cookie? Should these side effects happen? What about <title> and document.title? (Note that document.title has a setter.) 67802 1 dominicc 2012-05-17 04:45:52 +0000 FWIW, in Chrome Canary the illustrated code above has the effect of setting the cookie, which is visible in document.cookie. 69109 2 dglazkov 2012-06-15 22:12:17 +0000 Ok, trying to better understand how I should capture this. It seems I have a wording that's close enough: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/raw-file/tip/spec/shadow/index.html#html-elements "All other HTML elements in the shadow DOM subtrees must behave as if they were part of the document tree, though scoped to their subtrees." Do I need to add anything else? 69174 3 dominicc 2012-06-18 01:38:05 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > "All other HTML elements in the shadow DOM subtrees must behave as if they were > part of the document tree, though scoped to their subtrees." Maybe it is Monday morning speaking, but as an implementer, I don’t know if that means the above example should set document.cookie (ie behave as if it were part of the document tree) or not (ie be scoped to its subtree)? Because subtrees don’t have cookies, I guess it is the former, so what does the "scoped to their subtrees" phrase control? 71263 4 dglazkov 2012-07-20 17:52:04 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > "All other HTML elements in the shadow DOM subtrees must behave as if they were > > part of the document tree, though scoped to their subtrees." > > Maybe it is Monday morning speaking, but as an implementer, I don’t know if > that means the above example should set document.cookie (ie behave as if it > were part of the document tree) or not (ie be scoped to its subtree)? Because > subtrees don’t have cookies, I guess it is the former, so what does the "scoped > to their subtrees" phrase control? I made it more clear what the "scoped" means by explicitly referencing the "scoping constraints" (and linking to them). http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcomponents/rev/cade79aaed01 What do you think? 71264 5 dglazkov 2012-07-20 17:52:28 +0000 Please reopen if I screwed up.